No abduction? So what if the e-fits were suppressed for 5 years ?

[Aegean]

If the e-fit(s) resembled Gerry McCann in 2007, then presumably they still resemble him today (give or take minor changes in Gerry's appearance since then).

Though the two e-fits look completely different - quite an achievement in artistic terms, given their banality -  so how Gerry (or anyone else for that matter) could be framed given that one contradicts the other makes no sense.

In fact the release of two contradictory pictures makes no sense in the first place, but that's another thread...

They do resemble Gerry in the general features. Just put a pic of Gerry next to them, especially the pointy chin one and consider the nose, eyes, mouth, the hair. They also resemble each other in the facial features, what's different is the shape of the chin (in one it's narrow and pointy, in the other its square). For efits done when the witnesses only saw the man for what might even be just 10 seconds, they seem pretty close enough to Gerry. Efits aren't meant to be perfect works of representative art.

I'm not saying that man was Gerry, but he looked enough like Gerry for the McCanns not to want to release the efits.

Scotland Yard seem to think there's someting to the efits. The fact this man has apparently not been identified yet also suggests that he may be a significant factor, although apparently different callers after watching Crimewatch have given the same name for this person.

[Apostate]

They do resemble Gerry in the general features. Just put a pic of Gerry next to them, especially the pointy chin one and consider the nose, eyes, mouth, the hair. They also resemble each other in the facial features, what's different is the shape of the chin (in one it's narrow and pointy, in the other its square). For efits done when the witnesses only saw the man for what might even be just 10 seconds, they seem pretty close enough to Gerry. Efits aren't meant to be perfect works of representative art.

I'm not saying that man was Gerry, but he looked enough like Gerry for the McCanns not to want to release the efits.

Scotland Yard seem to think there's someting to the efits. The fact this man has apparently not been identified yet also suggests that he may be a significant factor, although apparently different callers after watching Crimewatch have given the same name for this person.

What name though? Has this man been taken in for questioning?

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, SH, I'm not saying the sighting was fabricated and I even think Ms Tanner saw a Tannerman who wasn't Innocentman, but not where and when she said she did.
I can't believe Innocentman walked all the way from the creche carrying the child as Ms Tanner described.
I'm sure there was no kind of previous plot or silence pact. The members of the group had some "natural" common interests.
Come on, SH ! The McCanns learnt about Smithman in the beginning of June 2007. Though in June 2007 Mr Smith had not yet found Smithman was Gerrylike, their first and twisted acknowledgement of this sighting was only two years later.

Edited to correct a serious mistake

These are important points, but the main thing is not what we think, but what the McCanns think.

As far as we can work out, they appear to support SY's assertion that bundleman is in fact innocentman, and that in the absence of more promising leads, the current focus should be on Smithman.

They appear perfectly content to drop something which many people have accused them of clinging to all these years as part of an alleged cover-up, or as a very shaky piece of 'evidence' of abduction.

Their willingness to accept the sudden and dramatic change in the focus of the investigation completely counters the assertion that they are clinging to the bundleman theory simply to prove points.

And what about the embarrassment surrounding the new Smithman focus?  It must be incredibly embarrassing for them that pictures that were put to one side for so long - for whatever reason - are now been wheeled out on a silver platter. They surely must feel that there is some practical merit to this new course of action.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's not as clear as that, SH. A waiter saw him leave the table for 30 minutes.
Nobody knows where Mr McCann was just after the alarm. Mrs Webster didn't see him near the pool nor in the flat 5 minutes later.

I am sure this point must have been made many times before, but Kate would hardly be raising the alarm during or just before the time Gerry would be running through the town with his child and disposing of her. Surely they would see that the body was properly hidden then raise the alarm.

[Apostate]

Grange having publicly dismissed bundleman the McCanns have little choice but to go along with Smithman - especially as we now know their own detectives thought the same 5 years ago and told them as much.

[Lyall]

These are important points, but the main thing is not what we think, but what the McCanns think.

As far as we can work out, they appear to support SY's assertion that bundleman is in fact innocentman, and that in the absence of more promising leads, the current focus should be on Smithman.

They appear perfectly content to drop something which many people have accused them of clinging to all these years as part of an alleged cover-up, or as a very shaky piece of 'evidence' of abduction.

Their willingness to accept the sudden and dramatic change in the focus of the investigation completely counters the assertion that they are clinging to the bundleman theory simply to prove points.

And what about the embarrassment surrounding the new Smithman focus?  It must be incredibly embarrassing for them that pictures that were put to one side for so long - for whatever reason - are now been wheeled out on a silver platter. They surely must feel that there is some practical merit to this new course of action.

Willingness Mr Holmes? It may be the case they have no choice in the matter. Now, as ever, the other seven holidaymakers are silent, in public. But who knows what has been said and/or done by them in private?

[Sherlock Holmes]

They do resemble Gerry in the general features. Just put a pic of Gerry next to them, especially the pointy chin one and consider the nose, eyes, mouth, the hair. They also resemble each other in the facial features, what's different is the shape of the chin (in one it's narrow and pointy, in the other its square). For efits done when the witnesses only saw the man for what might even be just 10 seconds, they seem pretty close enough to Gerry. Efits aren't meant to be perfect works of representative art.

I'm not saying that man was Gerry, but he looked enough like Gerry for the McCanns not to want to release the efits.

Scotland Yard seem to think there's someting to the efits. The fact this man has apparently not been identified yet also suggests that he may be a significant factor, although apparently different callers after watching Crimewatch have given the same name for this person.

How do we know this is the reason, Aegean?

I'm still not sure they look like Gerry. What specifically about the 'nose, eyes, mouth and hair' resemble him?

As to the overall shapes of the face and head, they are completely different types altogether.

[Lyall]

Grange having publicly dismissed bundleman the McCanns have little choice but to go along with Smithman - especially as we now know they're own detectives thought the same 5 years ago and told them as much.

Crimewatch would have been awfully bleak without the 'new' e-fits wouldn't it. There would have been nothing whatsoever to show, and the police wouldn't want that either.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Willingness Mr Holmes? It may be the case they have no choice in the matter. Now, as ever, the other seven holidaymakers are silent, in public. But who knows what has been said and/or done by them in private?

They seem to be being accused of having a very large influence in such matters hitherto.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Crimewatch would have been awfully bleak without the 'new' e-fits wouldn't it. There would have been nothing whatsoever to show, and the police wouldn't want that either.

So SY are sending the public on a wild goose chase? And wasting their own valuable time following up on the feedback?

[Wonderfulspam]

These are important points, but the main thing is not what we think, but what the McCanns think.

As far as we can work out, they appear to support SY's assertion that bundleman is in fact innocentman, and that in the absence of more promising leads, the current focus should be on Smithman.

They appear perfectly content to drop something which many people have accused them of clinging to all these years as part of an alleged cover-up, or as a very shaky piece of 'evidence' of abduction.

Their willingness to accept the sudden and dramatic change in the focus of the investigation completely counters the assertion that they are clinging to the bundleman theory simply to prove points.

And what about the embarrassment surrounding the new Smithman focus?  It must be incredibly embarrassing for them that pictures that were put to one side for so long - for whatever reason - are now been wheeled out on a silver platter. They surely must feel that there is some practical merit to this new course of action.

They appear perfectly content to drop something which many people have accused them of clinging to all these years as part of an alleged cover-up, or as a very shaky piece of 'evidence' of abduction.

Their willingness to accept the sudden and dramatic change in the focus of the investigation completely counters the assertion that they are clinging to the bundleman theory simply to prove points.




That must be why the official find Madeleine page wasn't updated to show the e-fits for 2 weeks after crimewatch then.
Until mccannfiles kindly pointed it out to them.

http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

When is a revelation not a revelation?

Two weeks after DCI Andy Redwood unequivocally dismissed the testimony of Jane Tanner, on the BBC Crimewatch programme, the McCanns are still promoting the discredited 'sighting' on their official website.

Yet, the e-fits created in partnership with the Smith family, and described by DCI Redwood as being of 'vital importance', are nowhere to be seen.

Why?

[Apostate]

the e-fits are on the home page. Someone really needs to take down the bundleman pics though.

[Sherlock Holmes]

They appear perfectly content to drop something which many people have accused them of clinging to all these years as part of an alleged cover-up, or as a very shaky piece of 'evidence' of abduction.

Their willingness to accept the sudden and dramatic change in the focus of the investigation completely counters the assertion that they are clinging to the bundleman theory simply to prove points.




That must be why the official find Madeleine page wasn't updated to show the e-fits for 2 weeks after crimewatch then.
Until mccannfiles kindly pointed it out to them.

http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

When is a revelation not a revelation?

Two weeks after DCI Andy Redwood unequivocally dismissed the testimony of Jane Tanner, on the BBC Crimewatch programme, the McCanns are still promoting the discredited 'sighting' on their official website.

Yet, the e-fits created in partnership with the Smith family, and described by DCI Redwood as being of 'vital importance', are nowhere to be seen.

Why?

The website is not properly maintained. It is odd, I agree.

But surely we have to take the crimewatch appeal as the latest stance of SY and the McCanns.

[Wonderfulspam]

The website is not properly maintained. It is odd, I agree.

But surely we have to take the crimewatch appeal as the latest stance of SY and the McCanns.

You seriously think the McCanns are privy to everything SY think & do?

[Sherlock Holmes]

You seriously think the McCanns are privy to everything SY think & do?

No, but I am sure there is communication, and that in general the McCAnns are kept in the loop.

They are being accused of manipulating both the investigation and the media on the one hand....if this is true they must be privy to a great deal of inside information. Can't have it both ways!